Degrees of Madness!

[letMfly]

Can anybody explain why UK ATCOs now have to insert the word "degrees" after any heading which ends in zero?

The change appeared in a MATS PT1 amendment earlier this year, but wasn't picked up at my Unit until we sent an ATCO on a OJTI course recently.

If you say to a pilot "TURN, LEFT, HEADING 120" there are three clues there which indicate that you don't want him to change level, so what is the problem? Has there been some misunderstanding that has led to this nonsense?

Also why use degrees only after zeros? At units using quadrantal levels, headings ending in five must bear the same risk as ones ending in zero!

letMfly

[radarman]

Can only be because someone, somewhere, has misheard a heading instruction and taken it as an instruction to change level. Difficult to imagine when you're sat at home in front of the computer, but on a busy sector, or a unit with cr@p R/T, it's quite possible. Having identified a problem, CAA have got to do something about it to cover their six. (Safety Management Systems, Duty of Care etc etc)

[Jerricho]

Hee-hee.

I remember the SI that came out for this one. Caused a little ripple.

And nobody has ever answered this question for me. If you're giving avoiding action, do you have to say degrees?

I'll get my coat.

[brimstone]

letMfly - there have indeed been incidents caused when pilots have confused headings and levels particularly on area sectors where similar numbers are used for both eg TC Midlands and several LACC sectors.

Also the phrase "fly heading" has been misconstrued as "climb level" believe it or not.

Jerricho, while you're finding your coat peg, why would the answer be anything other than "yes" although I'm sure most people would just do what they've always done and get it completely wrong.:uhoh:

[Jerricho]

why would the answer be anything other than "yes"

Ok, my poor attempt at humour may have been missed. Just remembering that the phraseology for avoiding action changed not long before the advent of the degrees decree. And the fact we all had to say it in a TRUCE.

[spekesoftly]

What also intrigues me is why some of these problems are a relatively new phenomenon? For example, I've used the the word "maintain", without ambiguity, for the past 35 odd years, and yet only in recent times am I now warned to use it with caution - because it could also be interpreted (by some) as an instruction to climb or descend.

This 'degrees' business will also add verbosity to SRAs:

"C/S Turn Right 10 degrees, heading 120 degrees" :ugh:

I'm not saying that there aren't reasons for the changes, but how the heck did we manage for all those years in the past? :confused:

[radarman]

Spekesoftly,

The reason we managed for so many years was because commonsense ruled. These days you get sued for farting without warning everyone in advance, so everyone is paranoid about covering their six. If a problem is identified and the authorities don't do something to mitigate its effects .............. Left - right - left - right - Clang!
And it's going to get worse - there are quite a few interesting posts on the Duty of Care thread.

[Dan Dare]

Just looked VERY carefully through the Part 1 (Amdt 59) for yet another instruction thats passed me by, but I cant find what you're all talking about!

Appendix E 4.1.4 says that provided no confusion or ambiguity results "degrees" may be omitted from transmissions in relation to surface wind direction and headings not ending in zero.

Thats clear, but amoung the many phrases in E(Attach) the only reference to degrees is eg "turn left/right (number) degrees, heading (three digits)" - NOTE not degrees. Each example of "heading (three digits)" omits reference to degrees, which to me would suggest no need to use it.

Have I missed something?

[letMfly]

Dan

You have found what I'm talking about! Like so much else in our esteemed bible it won't earn the crystalmark for easy reading, but appendix E 4.1.4 is what slipped us by at my Unit!

It says that "degrees" may be omitted from headings not ending in zero. i.e If they do end in zero then "degrees" can't be omitted.

Radarman

I note your reply of the CAA having to cover their six, but it's a pity that they don't consult/cover all bases (such as SRAs). Sometimes their edicts just make things worse. The "hold position" instruction caused all sorts of misunderstandings and the odd go-around when it was first introduced.

Spekesoftly

Like you, I have worked for many years in the industry (at busy units in UK and abroad) and often wonder how we coped before the paranoid ar**e- coverers emerged from the woodwork. Funny thing is - despite all their meddling there seems to be more incidents occurring now than in the good old days.

I'll get my zimmer.

[Dan Dare]

letMfly et al,

where does it actually say that you should use the word "degrees" for any heading instruction in order that it may be omitted? I don't believe that the implication in 4.1.4 is sufficiently direct to require "degrees" in each transmission.

[brimstone]

The answer is that it doesn't, but it should be in the MATS Pt 1 Glossary which is where all the other units to be used in communications are listed.

I believe this new procedure was driven by the Terminal Control Local Competency Certification Committee in response to a genuine problem, but it seems to be a "one size fits all" solution.

Some might say that it's no big deal having to say "degrees" but as spekesoftly said it is nonsense as far as SRAs are concerned and has absolutely no benefit.

There are many other instances, particularly in the approach phase where there is clearly no possibility of confusion eg "turn right heading 240 report established on the localiser" cannot be construed as "climb flight level 240".

I think the MATS Pt 1 should return to what it said previously and it should be left to individual units to identify any problem areas and act accordingly.

[FWA NATCA]

How about this incorrect readback by pilots!

On radar contract pilot is issued turn left direct MIE, climb and maintain One Zero, Ten Thousand.

Pilot reads back, turn left direct MIE, climb and maintain One Two Thousand, or Climb and Maintain One Four Thousand.

This occurs a lot, and it is beyond me how a pilot can mistake the instruction, to climb and maintain, One Zero, Ten Thousand for anything else.

Mike
NATCA FWA